Would Roark Invite Tooheyites?

[KendallJ]

I think a crucial point is being missed here, and that is that if one is rational, then one must morally evaluate ideas in the abstract.

Who is advocating anything different?

Please see my question in my post 59.

What you mean by "the abstract" is exactly what we're talking about (in the context of a person holding, advocating and carrying out the idea). You've said what you mean by "in the abstract" isn't a Platonic formal analysis so you must agree with us.

[KendallJ]

Well. Like I said, we probably just have to agree to disagree. I don't know if I'm just being skeptical, but I find it hard to believe that the average child will differentiate betweeen their words or actions being called 'bad' (as a non-reflection on them, thus not meaning the child is bad) and being called 'silly' (as a direct reflection on them and thus meaning the child is silly) - just because bad is applicable to other things besides humans whereas the other words functionally apply only to humans. A child who can make that "differentia" is indeed remarkable.

BD, you must not be a parent. There is actually a fair amount of studies suggesting that focusing on processes rather than the specific outcome when dealing with praise to children is quite important. In fact there is newer evidence that this works both in the positive (telling a child he gave a strong effort rather than telling him he's smart) as well as the negative. Since an idea is an outcome of a child's mental processing that would suggest that children in fact cannot differentiate well between the product of their efforts and their own self-image.

Note, this is no the school of "pumping" up someone's self esteem by praising effort regardless of outcome, but rather praising or correcting effort separately from analysis of the outcome, as Sophia is suggesting.

But then this thread is diverging pretty far from its original course.

Edited May 19, 2007 by KendallJ

[~Sophia~]

I think a crucial point is being missed here, and that is that if one is rational, then one must morally evaluate ideas in the abstract. By "in the abstract" I mean here that one must deal with the idea for what it is -- a statement about reality and the consequences that would follow logically from the idea in the abstract; in other words, by man's life as the standard.

I will try to make this distinction one more time.

Conceptual evaluation of an idea is an evaluation of its correspondance to reality, what it IS and its consequences. And it follows that any idea that we judge to be false/wrong (abstract or comming form a person in front of you) is something we should reject, at least in our mind (but not limited only to our mind).

Moral evaluation of an idea includes conceptual evaluation but it also includes an evaluation of the mental process that led to this idea. Moral evaluation is not simply a statement about idea's correspondance to reality - it is ALSO a statement about person's use of their mind. (you seem not to agree on this definition - which is clearly stated in Fact and Value)

When we morally evaluate actions completely in the abstract we ask for the CAUSE -the motive. It is incorrect to say: killing of another is immoral (this is only based on the EFFECT) but it is correct to say: deliberate killing of another when not in self defence is immoral (both CAUSE and EFFECT are taken into consideration).

When we morally evaluate ideas completely in the abstract - it is as if those ideas came from someone who had all the context, all the mental capacity and understanding necessary to know what they were 'inventing'. This is a default CAUSE and then we look at the EFFECTS. This is how we grade the options available to us.

When we are dealing with the concrete, with real people, the method is the same and because the concept of JUSTICE becomes relevant, when evaluating their actions and ideas morally - we have take into consideration THEIR particular context: THEIR motives, THEIR mental processes.

It would have been UNJUST to make a moral statement about anothers actions without considering this person's motive - for example, saying to someone who killed another in self defence - "You action was evil/immoral" because killing is anti-life. Yet, Mr. Miovas you are advocating THE VERY SAME when it comes to man's ideas.

When performing moral judgment correctly nothing is stopping a person from REJECTING a wrong idea (openly or in their mind) or even thinking in their mind about it as if it was completely in the abstract (if that is somehow helpful to them). But when ADRESSING another person - one ought to follow the principle of JUSTICE. You seem to be equating rejection of an idea with MORAL condemenation.

Mr. Miovas - you have brought up person's integrity. Integrity is a loyality of one's actions to rational principles (for an Objectivist - convictions and values are based on rational principles).

The inability or unwillingness to judge ideas in the abstract is a form of concrete-boundness, and leads to a type of moral skepticism along the lines of: "Well, maybe he didn't really mean it;" "Maybe he was only mistaken;" "We shouldn't take ideas seriously, after all, they are only abstractions;" etc. Which is one of the aspects of Fact and Value that Dr. Peikoff is arguing against as not being a part of Objectivism

.

Another straw man. After 100+ posts of mine - this is a dishonest summary.

I am neither inable or unwilliing to judge people's ideas morally, nor I think we can't objectively do so, nor I advocated guessing people's motives or mental processes. I think it is clear that I take ideas VERY SERIOUSLY.

The last sentence is another attempt to create a false dichotomy - either someone agrees with your hightly mistaken view - or they are against Oism or a Kelleyite.

In other words, if someone came onto this board and advocated communism, one's first reaction should not be: "Let's not morally evaluate the idea of communism as being evil; because, like a two year old, he might not know what he is talking about and he may not really mean it." Rather one should openly proclaim that the idea of communism is evil, and that if he continues to advocate it, then he will be removed from the board, since he is promoting evil ideas.

In other words... means this refers to the previous paragraph, so you are calling for removing me or anybody who agrees from this board for promoting evil ideas? Insults are not arguments. Since you have failed to make your case on intelectual level - you are trying to grab anything you can on your way down.

And you bet, when people come here claiming such a thing - we do ask them to explain what they mean, if we see potential in this person, we do try to educate them without insulting them. There are MANY of such treads here of this kind.

And it doesn't matter that Andrea may have fallen for communism on mistaken grounds. A moral, rational man would have to fight him in terms of ideology and action. In other words, had we gone to war with the Soviet Union early on and came across Andrea, he would either have to be captured or killed, with full moral rectitude, because he is the enemy.

Killed? You would have killed an entire country full of people short of few exceptions?

I have lived in such country for 17 years and I KNOW that many people were evil and many were simply mistaken about what communism truly means and in time those who were simply mistaken, when faced with consequences of communism/socialism - changed their mind.

Also notice that since Dr. Peikoff used Andrei as an example of morally innocent - he would not have called for killing him. And since you claim that this is what a moral, rational person would do - are you calling Dr. Peikoff immoral and irrational?

There may well be cases where someone is promoting evil ideas as a sort of intellectual Typhoid Mary -- i.e. he doesn't know the full evil of what he is promoting -- but just as people had the right to protect themselves from the carrier of a deadly disease; so those of us who do understand the complete logical evil entailed in communism (or any other anti-reason philosophy) have the right to condemn the idea as evil and that he cannot promote evil in our presence.

Mr. Miovas I have not made my mind wheather you are this disintergrated or a sophist. There is a difference between a deadly, contagious, disease - and an idea in someone's mind. There is a difference between keeping a gun in your house and using it.

You seem not be able to tell the difference, in terms of a threat between Kant and Catherine Halsey or between someone who simply holds a false idea and someone who advocates it as true.

And you have a right to say what you wish Mr. Miovas - reality will catch up with you - as it already has.

"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality." --Ayn Rand

Moral skepticism with regard to ideas considered in the abstract is like such a disease, because once some people succumb to it, no amount of facts or arguing seem to be able to persuade them otherwise.

Nobody here is a moral skeptic.

Edited May 19, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

What you mean by "the abstract" is exactly what we're talking about (in the context of a person holding, advocating and carrying out the idea). You've said what you mean by "in the abstract" isn't a Platonic formal analysis so you must agree with us.

Actually, by "in the abstract" I meant the meaning of the idea abstracted away from "the context of a person holding, advocating and carrying out the idea." In other words, communism, in the abstract as a theory must lead to the destruction of individual rights. Once one recognizes this, then one has to morally condemn it as being unfit for a rational man qua idea; regardless of who practices it and regardless of what they may misunderstand about it. It's like the difference between philosophic value and economic or social value. The philosophic evaluation of communism qua theory is that it is evil.

In reply to your question raised in post 59 (your link didn't work, by the way):

a. Sophia stands up and says, "This idea does not correspond with the facts of reality and it will lead to the destruction of all who attempt to practice it (hint: evaluation). I morally condemn the people who explicitly advocate this idea. I do not support it and I will fight against its implementation on my person, and those like me who also do not." (which by the way is exactly the sort of thing she is advocating)

My answer to b: But Sophia has not been advocating the moral condemnation of people who advocate anti-man, anti-reality ideas. In my previous post regarding someone advocating communism, she didn't say she would condemn them, but rather said that many of them are mistaken.

I'm glad Sophia mentioned Catherine Halsey, because Catherine was destroyed by ideas; the ideas of her uncle, Elsworth Toohey. Now, she didn't have to accept them, but maybe she didn't know how to defend herself from them. The way to defend oneself from ideas that are so destructive is to morally condemn them as evil, in the abstract, qua theory, because if followed they can only bring the destruction of man, such as what happened to Catherine.

Once she accepted them and advocated them, then she was like an intellectual Typhoid Mary, spreading destruction to whoever would listen to her. Her own example of what those ideas did to her should have served as fair warning to her (and to any rational man), but she no longer had the capacity to judge ideas in the abstract; because of the ideas that she accepted.

Edited May 19, 2007 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[~Sophia~]

In other words, communism, in the abstract as a theory must lead to the destruction of individual rights. Once one recognizes this, then one has to morally condemn it as being unfit for a rational man qua idea; regardless of who practices it and regardless of what they may misunderstand about it. It's like the difference between philosophic value and economic or social value. The philosophic evaluation of communism qua theory is that it is evil.

But moral evaluation of person's idea is NOT an evaluation of an idea qua theory same as moral evaluation of person's actions is NOT an evaluation of an action qua action in the abstract. This is your invented concept of what moral evaluation of person's idea is, not Oists, not Dr. Peikoffs, not mine.

Sophia has not been advocating the moral condemnation of people who advocate anti-man, anti-reality ideas. In my previous post regarding someone advocating communism, she didn't say she would condemn them, but rather said that many of them are mistaken.

I have not been advocating moral neutrality of people or of ideas. I am advocating morally judging people as INDIVIDUALS based on both the CAUSE and EFFECT of their actions and ideas. Morally I don't (and neither does Rand nor Dr. Peikoff) equate Marx with Andrei.

Again, what is moral breach:

a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge.

What did Rand say:

If, in a complex moral issue, a man struggles to determine what is right, and fails or makes an honest error, he cannot be regarded as "gray"; morally, he is "white". Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience.

I'm glad Sophia mentioned Catherine Halsey, because Catherine was destroyed by ideas; the ideas of her uncle, Elsworth Toohey. Now, she didn't have to accept them, but maybe she didn't know how to defend herself from them. The way to defend oneself from ideas that are so destructive is to morally condemn them as evil, in the abstract, qua theory, because if followed they can only bring the destruction of man, such as what happened to Catherine.

First, a person has to understand that an idea is destructive and Catherine did not understand that. If she did as she was an honest person - there would not have been a problem.

If someone holds an idea which they KNOW is destructive - they ARE immoral.

If someone takes an action which is destructive to them but they don't understand that it is destructive - they are not immoral. They are wrong - making an error but NOT a moral error. If someone holds an idea which is false but they don't grasp that it is - they are wrong, making an error but NOT a moral error.

Mr. Miovas - I think you may not fully understand the concept of morality.

Edited May 19, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

I know you did not perhaps intend this, but again, saying (essentially) that taking your position is (part of) what makes good parenting is effectively another argument from intimidation.

Ok this is the second time when you thought that I am making an argument from intimidation so I would like to explain.

An argument from intimidation is when someone makes a statement such as "you either think the same or you can't be a good parent" or similar as an argument - without providing evidence for why their position is in fact true and for why if someone does not follow their advice they won't be as good parents. My statement has not been an assertion, I have given my reasons and if not clearly enough - I am happy to debate child's psychology and parenting in a separate thread.

[~Sophia~]

I just remembered something I read some years ago that I think might be interesting to readers of this thread (I am not using this as my argument or as "evidence" for my argument, although it probably won't hurt my own position that much ). It's from an interview Playboy conducted with Mr. Bill Gates some time back. I googled it to refresh my memory. Here's the relevant part:

QUOTEPLAYBOY: Like your management style? We hear you're brusque at times, that you won't hesitate to tell someone their idea is the stupidest thing you've ever heard. It's been called management by embarrassment challenging employees and even leaving some in tears.

GATES: I don't know anything about employees in tears. I do know that if people say things that are wrong, others shouldn't just sit there silently. They should speak. Great organizations demand a high level of commitment by the people involved. That's true in any endeavor. I've never criticized a person. I have criticized ideas. If I think something's a waste of time or inappropriate I don't wait to point it out. I say it right away. It's real time. So you might hear me say, That's the dumbest idea I have ever heard many times during a meeting.

PLAYBOY: What do you mean when you say something is random?

GATES: That it's not a particularly enlightened idea.

-Bold mine.

If you have people in his company "in tears" or personally insulted isn't that evidence that adults make the connection between calling their ideas stupid and calling them stupid? Whatever Mr. Gates thinks is irrelevant (he is hardly an authority in philosophy) - if he does not mean to call his employees stupid then he is failing to communicate what he means.

If I want to criticise someone's idea without calling this person stupid - I know how to do it - in fact, I do it all the time.

[KendallJ]

Actually, by "in the abstract" I meant the meaning of the idea abstracted away from "the context of a person holding, advocating and carrying out the idea." In other words, communism, in the abstract as a theory must lead to the destruction of individual rights. Once one recognizes this, then one has to morally condemn it as being unfit for a rational man qua idea; regardless of who practices it and regardless of what they may misunderstand about it. It's like the difference between philosophic value and economic or social value. The philosophic evaluation of communism qua theory is that it is evil.

Now I'm confused. You must mean "abstracted away from the context of a particular person holding...". One cannot judge it abstracted away from the context of any person holding or advocating it or practicing it. You said so yourself,

I think the problem is that some of you do think that I'm saying that when an idea can be morally evaluated I'm saying that I'm holding the idea morally responsible for making an irrational decisions -- i.e. as if it is some sort of conscious being in Form-Space, which is not what I am saying at all.

An idea subsumes all of the particulars under it. So, when one says "communism" it means: people volitionally violating individual rights; people considering the masses as the unit of society; people urging for the willful destruction of innocent Leo's and Kira's; people fully and consciously taking away peoples lives because they won't follow their orders from The State; people gleefully destroying anybody willing and able to stand out above the ignorant masses; etc., etc.

It's not just a floating abstraction. The term "Communism" has all of those people doing all of those things. And those actions and their motivations are grossly irrational and therefore evil.

That is, it cannot be evaluated, morally, apart from the context of someone advocating, specifically, efficacious rational adults. It may be evalutated morally apart from a particular person, but not from the context of some person, and definitely not every person. That is, the moral evaluation of it "in the abstract" implies some context of certain types of people practicing. (Note, I'm using the term "evaluated morally" only to use your jargon")

In reply to your question raised in post 59 (your link didn't work, by the way):

My answer to b: But Sophia has not been advocating the moral condemnation of people who advocate anti-man, anti-reality ideas. In my previous post regarding someone advocating communism, she didn't say she would condemn them, but rather said that many of them are mistaken.

You didn't read the question very well. What is the difference between A and B?

I'm trying to understand very clearly the problem you have in practice with what Sophia advocates. That is, what does it mean to morally condemn an idea, a priori of a particular person standing in front of you holding it, as opposed to a priori identifying that it is a completely anti-man, anti-life idea (true regardless of who holds it), and that one will morally condemn any particular person who explicitly holds the idea?

If an idea cannot be evaulated apart from the context of someone holding and practicing it, and if we know that even when practice, some people who hold it can be morally "white", then I'm unsure what exactly is accomplished by "morally condemning" an idea other than "posting notice" of a future action to be taken. When faced with the idea in practice, one can still fight it in practice as anti-life without this "a priori moral condemnation", and one must still evaluate the context of those one encounters before morally condeming the person themselves (you've said this yourself). So what does it mean exactly?

"Morally condemning an idea in the abstract" sounds an awful lot in practice to me like "and I double-dog mean it with cherrys on top." It doesn't appear to me to do anything extra. Position A is NOT the Kelleyite position, at least you didn't jump to that conclusion immediately so please stop inferring that any of the mental processes involved in coming to position A are Kelleyite.

Sophia has not been advocating the moral condemnation of people who advocate anti-man, anti-reality ideas. In my previous post regarding someone advocating communism, she didn't say she would condemn them, but rather said that many of them are mistaken.

Well, you dropped the important adjective from my statement. Sophia has darn well been advocating the moral condemnation of some people who hold anti-life ideas, that is, those who do so explicitly, or who are guilty of massive evasions, per Peikoff's analysis. So A is the Peikovian position. If an A and B are no different, then we're simply arguing semantics - and I'd prefer to stop it. But you seem bent on the idea that there is something about what Sophia is adovocating that is wrong.

Not morally condemning other people who hold these types of ideas strikes me as superflous. It does not mean I'd lose one minute of sleep if one of them died as collateral damange in a war against the first type. They may be mistaken, but they are not innocent. This is what Sophia is arguing, I believe. One has different degrees of moral evaluation of people who hold ideas. This is certainly what Peikoff argues. Your desire to use as a litmus test then, those who cannot "morally condemn ideas in the abstract" for Kelleyism, strikes me as somewhat non-representative of Objectivism.

Edited May 19, 2007 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

I just remembered something I read some years ago that I think might be interesting to readers of this thread (I am not using this as my argument or as "evidence" for my argument, although it probably won't hurt my own position that much ). It's from an interview Playboy conducted with Mr. Bill Gates some time back. I googled it to refresh my memory. Here's the relevant part:

I wonder if he tries this with his wife.

The reality is that failing to distinctly differentiate someone's idea with the person themselves is usually an inflamatory statement and for one whos intent is to be productive with the other person, then inflaming the situation is not productive.

Gates has a luxury, in that "he's the boss." That is any of his subordinates who walk into his board room will usually check their knee-jerk reactions at the door before speaking with him. (such a context has both positive and negative consequences for such people) I don't condemn him for using this language in his particular context. I think I would too. HOwever, that does not mean that everyone else has the context to be able to practice it. That is, in context of this discussion, to discuss Bill Gates management style is a bit irrelevant. Management and communication are not synonymous.

By the way, this interview is from 1994, only just after he got married, and well before he had his first child in 1996.

Edited May 19, 2007 by KendallJ

[aequalsa]

BD, you must not be a parent. There is actually a fair amount of studies suggesting that focusing on processes rather than the specific outcome when dealing with praise to children is quite important. In fact there is newer evidence that this works both in the positive (telling a child he gave a strong effort rather than telling him he's smart) as well as the negative. Since an idea is an outcome of a child's mental processing that would suggest that children in fact cannot differentiate well between the product of their efforts and their own self-image.

Note, this is no the school of "pumping" up someone's self esteem by praising effort regardless of outcome, but rather praising or correcting effort separately from analysis of the outcome, as Sophia is suggesting.

But then this thread is diverging pretty far from its original course.

Out of curiosity, was this in regard to the development of intrinsic rather then extrinsic motivation?

[KendallJ]

Out of curiosity, was this in regard to the development of intrinsic rather then extrinsic motivation?

That a good point. I believe that it was how they showed the effects of positive outcomes ("You gave a great effort" vs. "You are so smart"), by looking at acheivement over time which ought to imply more intrinsic motivation. It's been a while since I read the citation so some web work might be able to quickly find the topics.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Now I'm confused. You must mean "abstracted away from the context of a particular person holding...". One cannot judge it abstracted away from the context of any person holding or advocating it or practicing it.

First of all, I don't think you ought to try to speak for Sophia; since she is quite capable of doing that herself.

Second of all, I will elaborate on what I mean by considering an idea in the abstract, as a theory.

I might be quite possible for someone, say Andrea, to hold in their mind the idea that communism means: "To overthrow the Tzar and return power to the people!" And in his context of being involved in the communist revolution, he might even have been justified in coming to this conclusion and supporting it.

By abstracting away from his context and considering the idea of communism as a philosophy, one can see that Andrea did not grasp the actual meaning of communism. In fact, the only reasonable way one could ever conclude that someone made a mistake is if you know what something actually means, but that someone could have come to a reasonable misunderstanding of that idea in his context. That is, the way most, if not all, such communist revolutions occur is by blurring the meaning of the philosophy that is inherent in the concept of communism itself. Instead of being told,"You will not be permitted to rise according to your abilities" they are told, "You will throw your masters off your back." However, in both actual theory and actual practice, communism can only mean the destruction of individual rights. Considered in the abstract in that manner, it can only be morally evaluated as being evil.

Similarly for environmentalism. The way environmentalism is cast is that man will get along peaceably with the animals, and we will all live in a cute and cuddly world, if only we showed more respect for the natural and animals and lived like they do.

In actual theory and actual practice, it means that no man will be permitted to re-shape the natural to his own selfish survival; which is evil because man survives by the use of his mind to re-shape the natural to suit his life-sustaining ends. So, qua theory, environmentalism is evil; because it is against man's nature qua man.

Andrea's misunderstanding of the actual nature of communism and a modern teenager's misunderstanding of the actual nature of environmentalism, does not change the actual nature of these anti-man theories. That someone may misunderstand an evil philosophy does not make that philosophy any less evil.

And I said "evil" and not just "incorrect", because I do understand the actual nature of these anti-man philosophies.

In many cases, both the communists and the environmentalists come right out and say what they mean explicitly; and yet many people fall for the "return the people to power" or "let's live in a cute and cuddly world" very thin veneer.

But if the rational would come right out and call these ideas evil in the abstract, there would be less unwary victims.

For example, had someone come out and told Catherine Halsey: "The ideas that your uncle are advocating are evil!" She might have been in a position to have checked her premises before she fell for them.

Edited May 19, 2007 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[~Sophia~]

Second of all, I will elaborate on what I mean by considering an idea in the abstract, as a theory.

I see that you have changed your terminology as if that would somehow change the meaning of what you say.

To evaluate an idea morally as a theory - in an abstract is to assume all of the necessary observations and understanding. When you are however faced with a REAL person you can not make the same assumption. So when you adress particular person - it is their particular context that ought to be considered.

I might be quite possible for someone, say Andrea...

The character's name was Andrei.

By abstracting away from his context and considering the idea of communism as a philosophy, one can see that Andrea did not grasp the actual meaning of communism.

In order to determine if he understood or not and why perhaps he may not have - you have to consider his context (and you are doing it below)

In fact, the only reasonable way one could ever conclude that someone made a mistake is if you know what something actually means, but that someone could have come to a reasonable misunderstanding of that idea in his context.

If you mean moral mistake - yes. Even without understanding a person is still making metaphysical mistake - acting against what is true. If he does not understand - he is just NOT morally guilty.

That is, the way most, if not all, such communist revolutions occur is by blurring the meaning of the philosophy that is inherent in the concept of communism itself. Instead of being told,"You will not be permitted to rise according to your abilities" they are told, "You will throw your masters off your back."

Yes.

However, in both actual theory and actual practice, communism can only mean the destruction of individual rights. Considered in the abstract in that manner, it can only be morally evaluated as being evil.

But when you are responding to a person - what you say is directed toward them.

If your intent is to spread true ideas, to educate those who are intelectually honest who perhaps hold those ideas due to lack of understanding - you can easily explain to them why those ideas are destructive without unjustly attacking the efficacy of their mind.

But your intent is not that, your intent is to morally condemn anybody who holds a false idea just because it is false idea - as it was clear from your 2+2=22 example.

If your intent is not to morally condemn a person - yet you end up doing it - then you are not communicating effectively.

Andrea's misunderstanding of the actual nature of communism and a modern teenager's misunderstanding of the actual nature of environmentalism, does not change the actual nature of these anti-man theories. That someone may misunderstand an evil philosophy does not make that philosophy any less evil.

And who was saying it does? Another strawman. But their actual understanding of what they are thinking affect their moral standing - they are not automatically evil - weather they are evil or not depends on their context.

But if the rational would come right out and call these ideas evil in the abstract, there would be less unwary victims.

Has anybody been saying that you can not do that? Another strawman.

We have been discussing how one approaches someone. This is a completely different context than adressing a wide audience. The smaller the intended audience - the more pointed your comments are.

People do understand your meaning when you are supposedly talking "in the abstract" about THEIR ideas - when your comments are directed toward a small audience, one person, or even a small group. Actually such thing is very insulting.

For example, had someone come out and told Catherine Halsey: "The ideas that your uncle are advocating are evil!" She might have been in a position to have checked her premises before she fell for them.

But you have switched here the actor - you are saying this about her uncle which was true.

Edited May 20, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[KendallJ]

First of all, I don't think you ought to try to speak for Sophia; since she is quite capable of doing that herself.

Well, in general I'd say that is a good policy. However, I know her pretty well, and unlike you, she has yet to inform me, privately or publicly, that I'm misrepresenting her position.

I think her basic analysis per F&V is correct, but her terminology may or may not be one I'd use. I'm really more trying to understand what it is that is so different about such that makes you imply it comes from Kelley.

Second of all, I will elaborate on what I mean by considering an idea in the abstract, as a theory.

Yeah, I'd sort of rather you just answered what was a very direct question, rather than writing me an essay. This strikes me as one of the reasons you seem to be talking past people. Because you actually aren't trying to connect with their reasoning, more like expounding to the masses.

As I read what you say, it seems to me that you simply are redefining the concept of contradictory with reality in an ethics sense, and are begging the question a bit. Any idea that contradicts with reality then is anti-life, and evil?

But if the rational would come right out and call these ideas evil in the abstract, there would be less unwary victims.

For example, had someone come out and told Catherine Halsey: "The ideas that your uncle are advocating are evil!" She might have been in a position to have checked her premises before she fell for them.

As compared to what?

I don't buy this for a second. This to me does imply that you are saying that the moral judgement of an idea is a "double dog mean it with cherries on top" sort of statement. You seem to want to cast anything less as a capitulation of the idea in the abstract, but frankly I don't see it.

Are you trying to say that if I had said "That idea is wrong. It completely flies in the face of reality. Anyone who seriously advocates it is evil." No, that wouldn't have done it, but if I had just called the idea evil, then Catherine would have been convinced.

[~Sophia~]

By abstracting away from his context and considering the idea of communism as a philosophy, one can see that Andrea did not grasp the actual meaning of communism. In fact, the only reasonable way one could ever conclude that someone made a mistake is if you know what something actually means, but that someone could have come to a reasonable misunderstanding of that idea in his context.

I think my previous comment to this statement was off. I misunderstood what you ment.

Not condemning another's idea as immoral when responding to them is not preventing you from understanding what such idea actually means - its consequences.

Edited May 20, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[blackdiamond]

BD, you must not be a parent. ... Since an idea is an outcome of a child's mental processing that would suggest that children in fact cannot differentiate well between the product of their efforts and their own self-image.

You obviously did not understand my argument in that post, Kendall. I was arguing against the suggestion by Sophia that you can call a child's idea bad (or not good), but you should not call it silly, that the child will think he IS silly but he will not think he is bad (supposedly because 'bad' refers to other things besides humans). Your response above doesn't defend her position; if anything, it refutes it.

If you have people in his company "in tears" or personally insulted isn't that evidence that adults make the connection between calling their ideas stupid and calling them stupid?

Isn't Bill Gates an adult too?

Most people think the term "selfish" is offensive. So?

I wonder if he tries this with his wife.

By the way, this interview is from 1994, only just after he got married, and well before he had his first child in 1996.

I can confirm for you that this did not change the way he spoke to his employees, if that's of any interest to you.

You see, Kendall, I do agree with you that speaking a certain way can offend many people. I agree. And if you want to have a happy relationship with your wife, it is probably right to watch what you say about her ideas, her cooking, her dressing, etc. She might get offended if you never compliment her new hair style and so on, so you should probably do it a bit more often. And like I said to Sophia, if this is the kind of thing you want to argue, it's fine. All I'm saying is that it's in fact not true that when you say your wife's dress is ugly, then she is ugly (or has no sense of style). What if the rest of her clothes are beautiful, for example?

Why would your one statement about one ugly dress suggest that she is ugly or that she has no sense of style? It does not, and yet many people still get offended by such statements. I think that judging her sense of style would have to go way beyond that one instance; it will involve looking at the rest of her wardrobe (integration) and/or analysing what kind of mental processes or "premises" led her to such a terrible collection (or to pick that one bad dress that you've seen)!

Thus, reserving judgment on someone's dress (or saying it in a nicer way) can probably be a good "virtue" or important "spousal skill" to learn if there is something else that you value more - e.g the peace between the two of you, as husband and wife, etc. But you can not use this in a philosophical argument that is trying to discover the real truth. No matter how many people think that your statement about their one dress is a statement about their sense of style or even their intelligence - and there are many such people - this connection is false.

No matter how many people think that whatever you say about their idea is a judgment of them as a person, this connection is false. And if "peace" or friendship is not something you particularly value with someone (the subject of this thread), then I see no justification whatsoever for not judging their idea exactly as it is, or stating it that judgment exactly as it is. Thus, I fully understand why Bill Gates doesn't think it's necessary to withold judgment about every employee's idea - if it is wrong it is wrong, if it is immoral it is immoral, if it is dumb, it is dumb. He wants to selfishly save his company from dumb ideas and he will just say it. If someone believes Gates' statement is a moral description of their soul and they should leave the company, then they are probably not the type of person he wants working for him anyway.

[blackdiamond]

[To Mr. Miovas]:

Another straw man. After 100+ posts of mine - this is a dishonest summary.

From your theory in this discussion, a statement such as this one implies that Mr. Miovas is a dishonest person. Do you now believe that Mr. Miovas is a dishonest human being?

And you have a right to say what you wish Mr. Miovas - reality will catch up with you - as it already has.

Am I missing something here? What exactly has happened in Mr. Miovas' life that we're supposed to know about on this public forum?

[KendallJ]

Thus, reserving judgment on someone's dress (or saying it in a nicer way) can probably be a good "virtue" or important "spousal skill" to learn if there is something else that you value more - e.g the peace between the two of you, as husband and wife, etc. But you can not use this in a philosophical argument that is trying to discover the real truth. No matter how many people think that your statement about their one dress is a statement about their sense of style or even their intelligence - and there are many such people - this connection is false.

Except that we're not talking about capitulating the truth or falsity of an idea here. No one is debating that. I would refer you back to my post 59. The interesting question that no one seems to want to answer. Position A clearly takes a stand on the truth or falsity of an idea, and it clearly "posts notice" on the moral judgement that will befall those who explicitly or evasively advocate false ideas. It is quite unequivocal. What does Position B do that Position A doesn't?

As much as Mr. Movias might like to think that I'm advocating some sort of 'tolerant discussion among equals' of all ideas; I'm not, and neither is Sophia. I do not understand what the a priori moral condemnation of an idea does above and beyond identifying it's utter falsehood. If it does not do anything, then I would suggest to you that criteria such as valuing the continuatin of the conversation might be important criteria. The question then is not are you conceding something by not making your position clear, but are you actually gaining something by keeping the conversation going with someone who it is in your interest to discuss with, for reasons you yourself have stated can be valid in certain contexts.

[KendallJ]

Just so my thoughts on the original debate are clear.

Here are some questions for the debate:

1. Should Roark (or any rational man) be tolerant, civil and polite to those who disagree with his fundamentals?

2. Is Roark hurting his own integrity to remain silent about the anti-artists in the Tooheyite association?

3. Is Roark hurting his integrity by not speaking out about the anti-artists in Austin's association?

4. Is it an aspect of Roark's integrity to want to keep the Tooheyites away from him?

5. If Roark can write lucid articles on the objective nature of art, and Austin doesn't think it is fitting to have such articles in his newsletter because it will keep some people out, is that sufficient for Roark not to want to have anything else to do with Austin?

1. Tolerant and civil/polite are 2 different things. Tolerant, no. Civil/polite (in rational discourse), yes. That is, Roark must clearly identify his fundamentals in areas where not doing so will sanction the opposite. He need not be a prig about it however. I think Roark is a fine example of this principle in action.

2. Not particularly. He is in no way providing sanction to that group and has the ability to make his own ideas heard (in a free society). If society were not free, that might be a different story.

3. Only if he continues to be a member, and his prominence gives it some sanction.

4. This is a bit 2nd handed, I think. As is his motivation of writing article for the express purpose of causing others to leave the association. To want people with whom you disagree with you to be far away from you for no other reason is 2nd handed. I don't care about people with whom I disagree, unless their ideas may serve to damage me or those I value. Write articles for your own purposes, Fight ideas when they threaten you. Roark could easily accomplish that end by withdrawing from the association and if necessary removing his sanction explicitly by publicly announcing it. Witness Roark's comment to Toohey, "Actually, I don't think of you at all..." (paraphrasing from memory)

5. If Roark and Austen disagree, and it is over a fundamental issue, then see #4 for actions Roark could take that would be sufficient. I prefer direct dealing with those you at least have some sort of respect for. That is, if you cannot convince Heller rationally, and directly, then writing articles for the purpose of chasing others out of the organization, while maintainig membership is underhanded. That is, it is attemtping to co-opt an organization away from its owner. Roark's prominence is probably more important to the true spirit of the organization, and withdrawal of his membership will do more damage than the articles he writes. Continuing membership and fighting ideas directly is only warrnated if the association is so fundamental to his purpose that leaving it woudl directly threaten him, and I am hard pressed to think of any association like that.

Edited May 20, 2007 by KendallJ

[~Sophia~]

From your theory in this discussion, a statement such as this one implies that Mr. Miovas is a dishonest person. Do you now believe that Mr. Miovas is a dishonest human being?

I judge his responses to me as intelectually dishonest - he reinforces his view in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence - so yes.

Am I missing something here? What exactly has happened in Mr. Miovas' life that we're supposed to know about on this public forum?

you can read the context of this "abstract" scenario here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=5261

[KendallJ]

I judge his responses to me as intelectually dishonest - he reinforces his view in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence - so yes.

you can read the context of this "abstract" scenario here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=5261

hmmm. So this whole "senario" appears to be a rouse to debate and justify his position on leaving this organization. I was not aware of this. I'd be interested to know what happened on the other forum where you raised this "hypothetical".

Well Mr. Movias, you can bet I won't be answering any more of your discussion on this topic. I don't sanction what I believe to be clear dishonesty, and my continued participation in your thread would do so.

And you should read my response to your question #4 and #5 carefully. It was meant to answer the hypothetical, but it seems to apply more concretely than I had originally thought.

Edited May 20, 2007 by KendallJ

[~Sophia~]

Blackdiamond,

I have already mentioned to you that we are here debating the intent of a response toward someone who we know is wrong about something, perhaps someone who is not familiar with Oism or someone who is still learning about Oism and has not accepted all of it yet as true. Once you formulate your intent based on correct principles it is not difficulat to communicate what you mean. This issue is not a simple misunderstanding in the meaning of words. If your intent is to morally condemn everyone who is wrong - you can do it even without stating it directly - and they will get the message.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

My primary purpose when I am writing in a forum is to make my position clear, which often does require writing something longer than a mere reply to a particular post. I cannot always figure out where someone is coming from in one or two counter posts; so I further explain my position.

For example, I'm not sure your post 59 is clear, since, given the context of the discussion, we have a disagreement on when Sophia or you would say that an idea is immoral. It seems you would only say it is immoral if a person held it in his mind in direct contradiction to their understanding of the issue. I think that is true when it comes to the moral evaluation of the person's character; however I think it is possible that one can advocate, say communism, as Andrei did, and that one could say that he was advocating an immoral idea -- i.e. communism in theory and in practice is immoral -- but still realize he could be advocating it on mistaken grounds. In that kind of case, I would say the idea is immoral or evil, but that Andrei doesn't understand the consequences of what he is advocating, so he is not immoral.

I think a lot of the talking past one another that we have going on is because you do not understand my position on ideas, and that one can and must morally evaluate them with regard to what they mean in theory and in practice; regardless of who is advocating them and regardless of whether or not the person advocating them is moral.

As I read what you say, it seems to me that you simply are redefining the concept of contradictory with reality in an ethics sense, and are begging the question a bit. Any idea that contradicts with reality then is anti-life, and evil?

Any idea considered in the abstract which contradicts reality is a morally bad idea. For it to be considered to be evil, it would have to contradict reality on a very wide scale -- i.e Kantianism as a philosophy. For example, Plato's philosophy considered in the abstract with regard to what they actually mean and will actually bring to fruition if followed are very bad ideas, because they will and did bring the Dark Ages; hence they are immoral ideas. Whether or not Plato himself was immoral is a different question. One can definitely say that he was rationalistic -- i.e. he had floating abstractions. But was it his aim to destroy civilization as he knew it?

Are you trying to say that if I had said "That idea is wrong. It completely flies in the face of reality. Anyone who seriously advocates it is evil." No, that wouldn't have done it, but if I had just called the idea evil, then Catherine would have been convinced.

I'm saying that one can and ought to morally evaluate an idea abstracted away from the advocator. I agree that Toohey was evil in that he wanted to destroy any sense of independence in everybody, that was his aim. But had he not been successful with Catherine and Peter, and had his ideas lay dormant for centuries and then re-discovered, any rational man could morally evaluate his ideas without knowing anything at all about him in particular. A rational man would be able to see that the ideas contained in his writings would necessarily lead to the destruction of independence for anyone who followed them; hence his ideas were very immoral; and even evil, since independence is a virtue and self-esteem is a primary value.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I judge his responses to me as intellectually dishonest - he reinforces his view in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence - so yes.

So, you are saying that I am intellectually dishonest because I disagree with your position. I still disagree with it, in the sense that I have been writing about throughout this thread; that is that one must and ought to morally evaluate ideas in the abstract and the people who advocate them taking their context into account.

you can read the context of this "abstract" scenario here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=5261

Yes, I was kicked out of NTOS for morally evaluating ideas in the abstract. I think a lot of people do not understand what that means, and therefore take personal umbrage at me saying they are advocating an immoral idea.

For the record, my removal from NTOS centered around the issue of whether or not Nathaniel Branden is an Objectivist philosopher. He is not. And the idea that he is an Objectivist philosopher is an immoral idea. Likewise with David Kelley. The person I was arguing against didn't understand that initially, but he changed his mind. The owner operator of NTOS refuses to take a stance one way or the other regarding that issue. I was taking a stance, and for that I was kicked out of NTOS. Also, because he has the same misunderstanding of the issues I have been raising in this thread that Sophia and KendallJ have. So, this thread and the whole debate are not just something that I arbitrarily attached to my removal from NTOS.

The issues I have been raising are central to an understanding of Objectivism. And I think that if one is going to run an Objectivist organization -- whether it be a board or a social function -- then one ought to have an intellectual understanding of Objectivism; and be able to back up that understanding. If you don't then you will be condemning the best advocates of Objectivism as being too harsh and "speaking down to people."

It may or may not have come from David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden, but it is the same thing.

[softwareNerd]

Thomas, It's good to see you mention a specific idea. It think the debate can profit from using some examples. Since none of us know all the details about NTOS, I think the only way this conversation can remain polite and productive is if we use the particular idea that was being advocated as a good real-world example, but stay away from discussing the particular real-world people in NTOS.

So, the example is this: a member of an Objectivist group (i.e. someone who has some understanding of Objectivism) says that "Branden is an Objectivist philosopher".

From your post, I gather that you hold the following two positions:

1. That a person can honestly hold this view (and you actually managed to convince one such person of your view)
   
2. That, once the argument is laid out, explaining why Branden is not an Objectivist, then the person hearing the argument can no longer hold it honestly.
   

Is that your position on this particular idea?